Kerry Officially Gets Foreign Relations Post Boston.com
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON — Senator John F. Kerry was named chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee today, pledging to use his stewardship of the influential panel to strengthen American interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, help end the war in Iraq, and craft solutions to the climate change crisis.
The Massachusetts Democrat is already on an extended tour of trouble spots that will likely consume the foreign policy attention of President-elect Barack Obama. Kerry met today with leaders in Pakistan and India, trying to ease tensions between the two nuclear powers over the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
He next goes to Afghanistan, where Obama wants to deploy thousands of additional troops to fight the war on terror. The first stop on Kerry’s itinerary, which began over the weekend, was the Republic of Georgia, the front line in Russia’s more aggressive stance against the West. Sunday, he and Obama talked about a global warming conference in Poland that Kerry attended.
“We have a big agenda ahead of us, just as our country faces big challenges across the globe,” Kerry said in a statement from Islamabad.
Kerry, who has served on the committee for 24 years and first came to public notice when he testified before the panel in opposition to the Vietnam War, was elevated to the chairmanship by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after he lost out to Hillary Clinton to be Obama’s secretary of state.
Kerry is set to take over for the outgoing chairman, Vice President-elect Joe Biden, at a crucial time. Aides said the stops on his foreign trip highlight some of the core issues he will have to deal.
Wild Thing’s comment………
Unfreakinbelievable !
Obama is throwing shoes at our troops picking Kerry for this job.
I bet he’ll look up his old VC friends from Paris (Hey, look at me now!).
MCain Won’t Support Palin 2012 Run … Yet newmax
Sunday, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, praised his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, but stopped well short of giving her the nod as the GOP’s standard bearer in 2012.
On ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” McCain was asked if he would back Palin in 2012. His terse reply was that he “can’t say something like that,” adding that the GOP has a stable of great governors poised to play a greater leadership role in the party, according to a report in The Hill.
“I have the greatest appreciation for Gov. Palin and her family, and it was a great joy to know them,” he conceded. “She invigorated our campaign.”
McCain used the forum to voice support for President-elect Barack Obama and for some of Obama’s Cabinet choices.
He said that the national security team picks could be his own. He also praised the tapping of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, according to the report. McCain, however, was quick to condemn the tactic of the Republican National Committee seeking to take political advantage of the arrest of Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich – by attempting to link the incoming Obama administration to the controversy.
“In all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody – right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary,” McCain said.
“Look, the president of the United States has been selected,” McCain added. “It’s time for us all to join behind him and help however we can. These are challenging times.”
Also here is McCain on David Letterman Dec. 11th, 2008
Wild Thing’s comment…….
At first this made me angry, but now I have to laugh about it. McCain is actually VERY jealous. He let it be known way back his first choice for VP was Joe Lieberman. Poor baby did not get to pick him, whoever it was knew he would not have a chance and none of us would want his ticket like that. Thus Sarah Palin was picked and we all were and still are enthused about her.
He saw the reaction change so much once he picked Sarah. The turn out at the rallies was enormous and ONLY because of Sarah. Toward the end many of the signs held up did not even have McCain’s name on them. LMAO So there McCain!
He didn’t count on such a visceral, positive reaction from a large segment of conservative Republicans. She outshone him.
And, contrary old cuss that he is, self-destructive fool that he has always been, he really resents her for it.
What got me big time during the campaign was, there was Sarah hitting the opponent hard with facts, facts about Ayers, and Rezko etc. Facts that a lot of people even today some do not know about those names, you know the me me me crowds that never get into politics and research the candidates.
And while she was doing all the hard work, there was John McCain, kissing up to Obama, scolding voters for asking questions about Obama being a Muslim, telling them Obama was a man of Honor. Blasting ads in some of the States that showed Rev Wright and his hate speech. Laying into a man that introduced him (McCain) on the campaign trail for using Obama’s full name.
Hello John, you attacked the TRUTH, you attacked the base, YOU attacked the best thing that a candidate could have for a VP……Sarah Palin.
Sarah campaigned as a person on a mission to win.
McCain campaigned by his words 90% of the time as a person that wanted to lose.
McCain is a walking poster-boy for what is wrong with the Republican party.
A man throwing a show at President George W. Bush during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday. (The Associated Press)
.
As most of you probably already know a hate filled Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at George Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan on Sunday.
This is not just an “Iraqi Journalist” – this is an emigre journalist, working for an emigre news outlet out of Cairo, which was pro-Saddam Hussein and anti-Shiite.
The Left in the USA will seize on this and say, “see the Iraqi people hate us thanks to Bush.” This misses the point, and they would be dead wrong. Back with Saddam there was no dissent. Instead there were rooms for torture. Under Saddam, this man and his family were feeding other people to the pigs – or the plastic shredders.
— Wild Thing
If you really want to get pumped up, listen to the way the troops in Iraq greeted their Commander in Chief. Headquarters 18th Airborne Corps Public Affairs 14 Dec 2008 Baghdad IQ
Troops reactions to President George W. Bush’s speech to them in Iraq. Scenes include Gen. Odierno introducing the President, President Bush speaking at the podium, reaction shots and Bush shaking hands with troops s they applaud. Also see “Spc. Whitfield, 1st Lt. Benson, Capt. Howell, 1st Lt. Butel” PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO
Bush departed the Green Zone by helicopter to Camp Victory, where he was greeted with cheers and whoops from the troops inside the enormous rotunda of the Al Faw palace. Speaking at a lectern beneath an enormous American flag that nearly reached the domed ceiling, he praised this generation of soldiers and reflected on the sacrifice of those who had died.
BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan
President George W. Bush paid a visit to the service members of Combined Joint Task Force-101 at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, Dec. 15 during his last visit as president of the United States.
“I’m proud to be back in Afghanistan,” Bush said during his visit. “I am proud to be with brave souls serving the United States of America.”
Bush expressed his well wishes to the troops during the holidays and thanked them for their service in eastern Afghanistan.
“It was here in Afghanistan that the terrorists planned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,” Bush said. “After that date, America gave the Taliban a choice: you can turn over the leaders of Al Qaida – or you can share in their fate. And when they refused, our just demands were enforced by the United States military.”
“Because of you, killers who wanted to take the lives of Americans back home have been brought to justice before they reached our shores,” he said to the troops.
Awesome Videos of our Troops and their Commander in Chief George Bush. PART ONE PART TWO VIDEO PART THREE VIDEO
He called the surge “one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military.”
“Thanks to you,” he told the soldiers, “the Iraq we’re standing in today is dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better than the Iraq we found eight years ago.”
After action report:
Probably over 1,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines packed the palace and stood for a couple hours (lots arrived way early to make sure they could get in).
The 4th Infantry Division had some band members there playing some great tunes and even doing vocals. Support folks had chow, snacks and beverages laid out for the crowd.
People were packed in like sardines. The backdrop for the stage was a gigantic flag that reached all the way to the ceiling, maybe about 70 feet.
General Odierno introduced the President. Started with, “Someone wanted to come see you to say goodbye, and to wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays…”
The troops were jazzed and very energetic, though this was about 2200 at the end of a, no doubt, very long day for everyone.
A great cheer went up when he took the stage. The President talked about the early decisions to go into the war, UN resolutions, the success of the Coalition. He talked about the dark days during ‘04-’05, and the ultimate success of the surge. Many compliments for the unprecedented successes of the military.
The troops broke in several times with applause and “Hooahs!”.
Two things stood out. The first was when he said its sometimes hard to understand you’re making history when you’re in the middle of the action. Second, he said he was ordering everyone, as Commander In Chief, to call their families when “y’all get out of here tonight” and tell them “the Commander in Chief says ‘thank you’” for all the sacrifices made.
He spoke about the losses and injuries to friends and loved ones, and how the troops would someday be thought of in the same way as those who were in Normandy, Verdun, Korea and elsewhere.
He was very comfortable with the troops and talked about what he would miss most not being President which was not being CiC. Afterwards, he stayed for a bit and shook hands and signed autographs. This one was just for the troops – no civilians or contractors or TCNs, just our soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines. It was clearly a great morale booster.
President George W. Bush gestures the “hook’em horns” sign of the University of Texas to U.S. military personnel in the balcony, as he meets with U.S. military and diplomatic personnel Sunday, Dec, 14, 2008, at the Al Faw Palace-Camp Victory in Baghdad. White House photo by Eric Draper
Dear Car Czar Townhall
by Oliver North
To Whom It May Concern:
Forgive the ambiguity of the salutation; I didn’t know whether to address this missive to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and “Dear Car Czar” just sounded so, well, tacky.
Let’s cut to the chase. I need a new car. I’m not asking for a bailout or anything like that. I just need some good advice, and I am hoping one or all of you can help. Here are the facts:
First, we only buy American cars in my family. My dad fought in World War II, and I always have been afraid he would rise up out of the grave and haunt me if I bought one of those Japanese or German machines. Perhaps you can recommend a pill or some kind of counseling for this problem.
I currently am driving an 8-year-old Oldsmobile, and the odometer is pushing a quarter-million miles. Yes, I know that makes me part of the problem. My wife and I just don’t buy cars often enough because we don’t buy things we can’t afford. Silly, I know, but after 40 years of marriage, we’re kind of stuck in our ways.
If it makes any difference, in my family we also have a Chrysler PT Cruiser and a Ford truck. They all are paid for, so I guess we don’t qualify for federal help in paying them off. And that gets me back to the big question: What kind of car should I get?
During my career, I’ve driven jeeps, Humvees and even a few tanks. I once owned a Shelby Cobra, but we traded it in for a station wagon when we started having kids. My wife suggested that given my advanced age and the sad state of our economy, I should get a Winnebago. She says that way, if the bank foreclosed on our home, at least we would have a place to live.
I can’t get a new Oldsmobile (is that an oxymoron?) because GM doesn’t make them anymore. Speaker Pelosi said, “Come March 31, it is our hope that there will be a viable automotive industry in our country.” “Hope”? I’m shopping in Virginia. Where is Hope?
In the past when I shopped for a new car, I asked friends about their recent purchases, read newspaper advertisements, paid attention to television or radio commercials, and picked up Car and Driver magazine. After compiling what Washingtonians call a “shortlist,” I consulted Consumer Reports to determine how my choices ranked against similar autos. Then I bought what I could afford from a dealer I trusted.
Given what happened on Capitol Hill this week, it’s clear that my way of car shopping is hopelessly outdated. Today’s experts on the automobile that’s best for my family and me are the members of Congress. (Please note that this acknowledgment is not meant as a slight to President-elect Barack Obama, known in our house as “PEBO.” During the recent presidential campaign, PEBO admonished us all to keep our tires properly inflated. Thank you for the tip.)
PEBO’s help notwithstanding, the recent congressional hearings raised questions I never had thought to ask when car shopping. For example, Sen. Chuck Schumer told auto executives that it is “unacceptable” to continue building cars with internal-combustion engines and that I should be able to buy a “plug-in hybrid electric car.” Does Mr. Schumer know of such a car I can afford that would allow me to make my daily 150-mile round trip commute? If I don’t make it home, will he give me a ride?
Can you give me a hint as to which of the Big Three automakers Congress will allow to survive? Will you permit the dealer where I purchase a car to stay in business? Should I get the extended warranty?
While driving, I listen to talk radio and would like to have satellite radio installed, but not if Congress is going to insist on the Fairness Doctrine. Will you?
If I get the tow package, will Sen. Chris Dodd accuse me of owning an “inefficient, gas-guzzling” vehicle and of dismissing “the threat of global warming”?
If I put down a minimal deposit at the time of purchase and then wait a few months and default on my loan, will the federal government bail me out? Because the feds will own the automakers, should I call the Department of Transportation or the “car czar” when I need a tuneup?
The best solution for my problem is to have a member of Congress join me while I hunt for a new car. I hope the member you assign can “kick the tires” and answer some of these questions — and one other:
Congress has insisted that auto company executives achieve performance standards or be financially penalized. The CEOs of Chrysler, Ford and GM all are working for $1 per year. Shouldn’t congressional pay be adjusted the same way?
Oliver North
Vietnam Veteran
Unit 3rd Battalion 8th Marines
2nd Marine Division
Wild Thing’s comment………
LOL I love this article North wrote.
PEBO = President-elect Barack Obama
Or it could be hahaa
PEBO = Pretend Emperor Behaving Obnoxiously
Hahahaha Love that Oliver North.
It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
by Jonathan Soros
Jonathan Soros is the deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management and a supporter of the National Popular Vote.
Jonathan Tivadar Soros is the son of Annaliese Soros and billionaire financier George Soros The Wall Street Journal
In his election-night victory speech, Barack Obama said he would be a president for all Americans, not just those who voted for him. But as a candidate he didn’t campaign with equal vigor for every vote. Instead, he and John McCain devoted more than 98% of their television ad spending and campaign events to just 15 states which together make up about a third of the U.S. population. Today, as the Electoral College votes are cast and counted state-by-state, we will be reminded why. It is the peculiar mechanics of that institution, designed for a different age, that leave us divided into red states, blue states and swing states. That needs to change.
The Electoral College was created in 1787 by a constitutional convention whose delegates were unconvinced that the election of the president could be entrusted to an unfiltered vote of the people, and were concerned about the division of power among the 13 states. It was antidemocratic by design.
Under the system, each state receives votes equal to the number of representatives it has in the House plus one for each of its senators. Less populated states are thus overrepresented. While this formula hasn’t changed, it no longer makes a difference for the majority of states. Wyoming, with its three electoral votes, has no more influence over the selection of the president or on the positions taken by candidates than it would with one vote.
We often forget that the power to appoint electors is given to state legislatures, and it is only because they choose to hold a vote that Election Day is at all relevant for us. Nowhere is a popular election constitutionally required. And, as the 2000 election reminded us, the winner of the popular vote is not guaranteed to become president. The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president. Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
Fortunately, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Rather than dismantling the Electoral College with an amendment, we can use the mechanisms of the Electoral College itself to guarantee popular election of the president.
To understand how the proposal works, one needs to understand two basic principles. First, that state legislatures are basically unfettered in how they choose to appoint electors. And second, that groups of states can enter into binding agreements with one another in the form of so-called interstate compacts. There are many examples of such compacts, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the interstate agreement that guarantees a driver points on a Virginia driver license when he or she speeds in Maryland.
Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote. For example, if a Republican were to win the overall national popular vote, even if New Yorkers favored the Democrat, New York’s Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. The compact will go into force when states representing 271 Electoral College votes have entered into it to guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will become president.
It is ironic that the most common objection to the National Popular Vote compact is the suggestion that it is antifederalist. In fact, interstate compacts lie at the very core of federalism: individual states combining their powers to solve a problem. In this case, they would be joining forces to allow their citizens to act as one nation in the selection of their president.
The National Popular Vote compact has already been enacted by four trailblazing states — Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii — and has been introduced in 41 others. It’s time that the rest of them got on board.
Wild Thing’s comment……..
OMG!!!!!!!! The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president. Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
The libs hate it because they haven’t figured how to steal electoral votes yet.
If the Electoral College was abolished, the small States would become irrelevant in Presidential elections. Each ticket would solely focus on the States which it is sure to win. That would likely lead to secession movements in most, if not all, of those States. To abolish the Electoral College is to destroy the States’ role in all future Presidential elections.
I think ole commie Jonathan Soros son of communist George Soroso is a bit worried about all of these citizenship lawsuits.
The Electoral College is one of many, many safeguards against tyranny contained in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a target of the left.
Soros nice try. Our forefounders put that in place to keep the likes of you out of our government.
If you have time check this out about othe Democrats strong desire to get rid of the Electorial College ( article dated 2000) Hillary Clinton vs. James Madison
An Obama rejection … President-elect Barack Obama just got nixed! Chicago Sun Times
by Michael Sneed
Sneed hears the White House has rejected a recent request by Obama to occupy Blair House, the president-elect’s Washington residence, at an earlier date.
• To wit: Sneed hears Obama wanted to move his family and his transition team to Blair House, which is across from the White House, nearly two weeks before the president-elect historically moves there on Jan. 15 — five days before the inaugural.
• The backshot: A source tells Sneed: “There were reportedly two reasons for the request: Obama’s children start school in early January — and the move could be interpreted as a New Year’s symbolic gesture showing the president-elect in a presidential capacity across from the White House on Jan. 2, the day after New Year’s Day.”
• The buckshot: Blair House, the president’s guest house for visiting dignitaries, nixed the request. “It was a polite rejection,” the source added. “But I’m told Blair House was appalled.”
• Responses: An Obama spokesman tells Sneed they were told Blair House had guests until Jan. 15. … Sally McDonough, a spokesman for first lady Laura Bush, tells Sneed: “Respectfully, we are keeping transition conversations quiet. But Jan. 15 is historically the time when incoming presidents occupy Blair House, which is the president’s guest house.”
Wild Thing’s comment………
OMG!!! what tribe of brazen loosers!! Every other President played by the rules: No checkin till Jan. 15th, but NOT these POS’S! No Siree! Pigs!
Barak Hussein and Michelle HO-bama and their mentality of entitlement.
The Rats never want to follow the rules.
The girls should be in a classroom in Chicago after the end of the Christmas holidays – the school they have been attending since September – not parachuting into a brand new school.
The Obamas are using the girls for an excuse to get to DC ahead of their appointed day and hour. Obama played the parent card to try to get what he wanted.
….Thank you Lynn for sending this to me. A quote from Lynn:
“One of my hubby’s cousins owned Blair House–Senator Thomas Ewing of Ohio. He was supposed to have been William Henry Harrison’s running mate. That’s how close his family came to being President. No, Obama, you can’t move in early. Stay at a Motel 6. ”
I agree Lynn!!!
Wild Thing’s comment…….
LMAO, I laughed so hard at this. It made me think of the woman in the video that is going to be in for the shock of her life when Obama is not there to fill her gas tank and pay her mortage.
……Thank you RAC for sending this to me. RAC has a website that is awesome.336th Assault Helicopter Company 13th Combat Aviation Battalion – 1st Aviation Brigade – Soc Trang, Republic of Vietnam
U.S. troops’ new mission: America’s ‘special events’
Proposal would allow civilians to activate Army to prevent ‘environmental damage’ wnd
By Bob Unruh
New rules published in the Federal Register would allow certain civilians to call American soldiers into action inside the U.S. to prevent environmental damage or respond to “special events” and “other domestic activities.”
The alarming warning is contained in proposed rules published last week for the Department of Defense’s “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” plan.
Under the U.S. Constitution, soldiers inside the country essentially are tasked with the responsibility of quelling “insurrections” and repelling invasions as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government.
But the new rules go far beyond that, essentially establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues under provisions that appear to be devoid of any connection to the Constitution, according to an expert.
“I think the thing that’s of concern with respect to this set of rules is it appears to have no constitutional foundation, no reference whatsoever of any constitutional structure. It’s totally missing,” said Herb Titus, a onetime candidate for vice president for the Constitution Party and a longtime constitutional professor.
“I think the thing that’s of concern with respect to this set of rules is it appears to have no constitutional foundation, no reference whatsoever of any constitutional structure. It’s totally missing,” said Herb Titus, a onetime candidate for vice president for the Constitution Party and a longtime constitutional professor.
Titus, whose biography includes teaching at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools and service as founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University, reviewed the federal proposal at WND’s request.
The multi-page plan is to establish policies and assign responsibilities “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.”
“Who Killed the Constitution?” Here’s a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is … dead.
The plan states, “This proposed rule will allow civil authorities access to the correct procedures when they are seeking assistance from the Department by establishing updated policy guidance and assigning the correct responsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support of civil authorities in response to requests for assistance for domestic emergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events, and other domestic activities.
Titus, who has testified before Congress on constitutional issues and is authorized to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, said, “All of this is based on the assumption that government was created for the purpose of preventing things from happening in our lives.”
A plain reading of the law, he said, would allow drastically different actions than what Americans probably expect.
“Instead of prosecuting somebody charged with murder, we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives,” he said, citing the plan’s apparent permission for the government to restrain liberties when there is concern about potential damages or injury.
A contact at the Department of Defense did not return a WND call requesting comment on the proposal.
But the plan itself says the person calling for soldiers’ actions could be either a military official or civilian leader. And it renews questions about Barack Obama’s stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Even Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, says there will be a mandatory “force” for Americans.
“If you’re worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes,” Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News.
WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.
That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposal. The new wording reads, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
Video of a marching squad of Obama youth.
Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July “Call to Service” speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force.”
A video of his comments is here:
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.
The newly proposed Department of Defense rules leave a virtually wide open door for what could be cited as a reason for military intervention.
It defines “Imminently Serious Conditions” as “Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD civilian official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigate great property or environmental damage.”
Repeatedly the rules cite “special events.”
The plan has been lauded by some in the Bush administration and Congress as a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism, despite concerns over how it would undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.
At word of the plan, the ACLU warned of expansions in “presidential and military authority,” while the Cato Institute called it a case of “creeping militarization,” according to the Post.
Gene Healy, Cato vice president, told the newspaper, “There’s a notion that whenever there’s an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green … and that’s at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.”
Wild Thing’s comment………
I am really glad to have this added information. I think we need to keep up on this to see what else they will add to it. Especially with the illegal President that will be sworn in next year. “the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues “
Tied in with 20,000 troops being deployed in the U.S., this is scary.
See it here in a post I did on December 2, 2008 Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.”
And this was in the ARMY Times last September …for complete article 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
Other branches included
The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.
Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.
A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.
In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.
There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
The post referenced article states: Under the U.S. Constitution, soldiers inside the country essentially are tasked with the responsibility of quelling “insurrections” and repelling invasions as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government.
But the new rules go far beyond that, essentially establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues under provisions that appear to be devoid of any connection to the Constitution.
Obama although he claims to be a “Constitutional Lawyer” who taught Constitutional law, is attempting to undermine and destroy the basic freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to insure to their progeny, and those who would later adopt the USA as their homeland (legal immigrants). We have the Bill of Rights because the founding fathers knew that those rights would guarantee that USA would be and remain a free country where the Rule of Law would prevail over any form of force. It appears that Mr. Obama plans to use force to destroy our freedoms and our rights assigned to the States and citizens under the Constitution.
Politico
The Republican National Committee is launching a Web video tomorrow raising questions about past ties between Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.).
The two-minute video, titled “Questions Remain,” puts pressure on the president-elect to disclose the contacts his transition team has had with Blagojevich. Obama said this week that he will soon be releasing a full list of conversations that members of his staff had with Blagojevich – but he has not yet done so.
At a press conference earlier this week, Obama said he never personally spoke to the governor about his successor in the Senate – but it now appears that his incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had discussed several names with the governor. Obama Actually Endorsed Blagojevich TWICE.
While Obama has never been close with the governor, the video points to several instances where they worked together as a matter of political convenience. After Blagojevich won the Democratic nomination for governor in 2002, Obama helped advise his campaign. (Obama supported one of Blagojevich’s opponents in the primary.)
And Obama endorsed Blagojevich when he ran for re-election in 2006 – a time when he was already under investigation over hiring and fundraising scandals. (A Green party candidate took 10 percent of the vote, highlighting Democrats’ dissatisfaction with him.)
Wild Thing’s comment………
Heh heh Hussein just may become the first lame duck President-elect.
….Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Recent Comments